Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers extending subdivision vesting and changing appeals path for building‑code disputes
Summary
House Bill 413 would extend the statutory vesting period for subdivision approvals from five to seven years, lengthen the time to show substantial start, and allow state‑level appeals of state building‑code disputes without first exhausting local appeal routes.
The committee received testimony on House Bill 413 on March 3. The bill, sponsored by Representative Diane Power, would (1) extend the vesting period for approved subdivision plats from five to seven years, (2) lengthen the time allowed to make preliminary substantial progress before vesting lapses, and (3) change the appeals path for state building‑code or fire‑code issues so that developers could appeal directly to the State Building Code Review Board instead of first appealing to the local board of adjustment or board of selectmen acting as the local building code board of appeals.
Sponsor testimony emphasized that longer vesting and a longer period to demonstrate substantial activity would reduce the risk to developers of changing state or local codes that can increase project costs during long builds. Representative Power said the bill "prevents escalating costs as a result of the developer needing to have to go back and redo work after a project had been approved" and cited supply‑chain delays and workforce shortages as reasons some projects exceed the current five‑year clock.
Supporters from Brookline, including Eric Power, said the pandemic and other delays left many subdivision approvals running against five‑year deadlines, discouraging larger, phased projects and complicating local phasing plans that towns use for school and infrastructure capacity management. Brookline officials said modest extensions (from five to seven years and from two to three years to show substantial start) would align better with phased development and reduce the need for repeated reauthorization votes.
The New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed some aspects of the bill as written. NHMA's witness urged caution about removing the local appeal layer, saying local boards are more accessible for property owners and municipal officials and that shifting appeals to Concord could slow resolution. NHMA also warned against retroactive vesting changes that could reopen closed disputes.
Committee members asked for data on how often projects miss the five‑year deadline and for examples of local practices. Representative Fract requested research showing how often developers exceed current time frames; sponsors said the change was responsive to constituent experience and earlier bills. NHMA asked the committee not to make vesting changes retroactive to avoid unintended legal consequences.
The hearing closed after remote testimony (four in support, two opposed) and a paper blue sheet showing one in favor. The transcript does not record a committee recommendation in that session.
